Bi-Partisan Bill in Congress Will Restrict Use of Naked Scanners & Pat-Downs

[sabrina 1]

The Bill was introduced in March and has met with the approval of the ACLU. It would essentially restore passengers' 4th Amendment Rights by making it necessary for the TSA to have probable cause before subjecting passengers to the Naked Scanners and/or 'enhanced patdowns'.

Then in April, after the reports of the frisking of six-year old Anna Drexel reached members of Congress, Rep. Chaffetz introduced more legislation making it necessary for the TSA to get parental consent before touching children in the future.

From the ACLU:

Stranger Danger TSA Frisks Another Little Kid

Anna's mother Serena Drexel told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday that her daughter began to cry after the search and said, “I’m sorry mommy. I don’t know what I did wrong.”

Serena Drexel said she’s concerned because she and her husband Todd, a Bowling Green doctor, have taught their three daughters to be wary of strangers.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) responded quickly to this horrible story by introducing legislation yesterday (!) that would require parental consent before patting down a little kid. Rep. Chaffetz noted in a statement that TSA broke its own rules by patting down little Anna: “This conduct is in clear violation of TSA’s explicit policy not to conduct thorough pat-downs on children under the age of 13.”

As noted in the article, something even worse had come to their attention regarding the treatment of children by the TSA:

In 2010, full committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote to after the screening of a four year-old disabled boy who was forced to hobble through a metal detector with neither his leg braces, nor his father’s assistance.

Can't think of much good to say about Issa, but if together with other members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, they can end these abuses, I think any help towards that goal is welcome. The issue has been a bi-partisan issue and I imagine it is because regardless of politics, they all have children or grand-children, mothers, sisters, wives and elderly relatives and for once, most seem to agree that these abuses must stop.

11 States are currently planning on legislation to ban and/or restrict the use of Naked Scanners and especially the gross violations of personal privacy and rights called 'enhanced patdowns. Also several lawsuits have been filed by passengers including pilots and other organizations concerned about the erosion of Civil Liberties.


You can read the text of the Bill here:Text of H.R. 1279: Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2011

March 31, 2011

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself and Mr. HOLT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY AND ENHANCED PAT-DOWN SEARCHES FOR AIRCRAFT PASSENGER SCREENING.

Section 44901 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(l) Limitations on Use of Advanced Imaging Technology and Enhanced Pat-Down Searches for Screening Passengers-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall ensure that advanced imaging technology is used for the screening of passengers under this section only in accordance with this subsection.

‘(2) ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY- Advanced imaging technology may not be used as a method of screening a passenger under this section unless--

‘(A) the National Academy of Sciences determines that the technology poses no threat to public health;

‘(B) the technology is equipped with a privacy filter or other privacy-protecting technology; and

‘(C) another method of screening, such as metal detection, explosive trace detection, or behavioral profiling, demonstrates reasonable cause for utilizing advanced imaging technology to detect a possible threat to aviation security.

‘(3) ENHANCED PAT-DOWN SEARCHES- An enhanced pat-down search may not be used as a method of screening a passenger under this section unless another method of screening, such as metal detection, explosive trace detection, behavioral profiling, or use of advanced imaging technology in accordance with paragraph (2), demonstrates reasonable cause for utilizing advanced imaging technology to detect a possible threat to aviation security.

The ACLU has set up a page which people can use to support the passage of the bill HERE

Or if you want to call your Representative Thom Hartmann has some numbers HERE

They do listen when people express enough outrage it seems. I admit, I thought this was not the case anymore.

There is also a move to defund the machines in Congress, but as Chaffetz, who has always opposed them has said, 'the machines have lobbyists', otherwise he says, 'they can't do anything a German Shepherd can do better'. The bill will have a lot of opposition and the CEO of Rapiscan is threatening that without the machines, there will be 'more patdowns'.

As if we did not know that was the ONLY purpose of the patdowns. To force people to use the machines.

Hopefully People Power, especially at election time, can defeat the lobbyists and their greedy clients this time.

[ej510]

1. What would be the criteria needed in order to be searched?

[sabrina 1]

4. Well, right now, they can do it with no restrictions, no probable

cause, you only have to 'want to fly'.

This bill makes it necessary for other methods, metal detectors, to be used first and only if the person fails to pass that then they can consider the patdowns or naked scanners.

ENHANCED PAT-DOWN SEARCHES- An enhanced pat-down search may not be used as a method of screening a passenger under this section unless another method of screening, such as metal detection, explosive trace detection, behavioral profiling, or use of advanced imaging technology in accordance with paragraph (2), demonstrates reasonable cause for utilizing advanced imaging technology to detect a possible threat to aviation security.

[villager]

2. Wonder if the administration will take note, or, as with marijuana policy, go explicitly against

...citizen wishes?

[sabrina 1]

6. The administration's position on this is worse than

Bush's. They are the opposition, sadly. I thought when we supported them, they would be leading the fight to restore our rights, instead they have taken away even more.

Eg, there is also an attempt in Congress as I said in the OP to defund the machines. Sad to say, it is Republicans, some of them, who are pushing it. And it is administration that is opposed to it.

That's why any attempt to restore our rights will need a lot of support from the people. It won't come from this WH.

[alstephenson]

3. K & R

[SDuderstadt]

5. Sabrina...

How is this different than the current situation?

Hint: it isn't.

[sabrina 1]

7. Hint: Wrong!

[SDuderstadt]

10. Yes, it is...

Sabrina. First of all, "reasonable cause" and "probable cause" are not the same thing. "Probable cause" appears nowhere in the bill, despite your claims to the contrary.

Beyond that, this bill PERMITS the use of both enhanced patdowns and full body scanners. Are you okay with that all of a sudden?

[sabrina 1]

14. This bill RESTRICTS their use.

If it passes, the TSA will no longer be able to force anyone (actually they don't have that right even now, but are asserting it, falsely) to use the scanners or patdowns without first showing a compelling reason for doing so.

It is a step in the right direction, an improvement on the road back to sanity. And with the states also working on bans and restrictions, sooner or later they will be banned, AFTER this country decides that handing over rights to terrorists, is worse than anything they could do.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Did you miss the reference to...

"behavioral profiling"?

[sabrina 1]

16. NO, not at all. Ironically

you point out that there IS a difference, that there ARE restrictions on the use of these machines. That there are in the bill, requirements that would preclude the use of the machines and/or the patdowns before the TSA having to jumpe through several hoops before demanding that passengers have to go through those scanners. That is what the ACLU likes about the bill.

Thanks for pointing it out. Saved me the trouble.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Sabrina...

Please tell us what "behavioral profiling" means. It's kinda broad, isn't it?

Also, despite your claim to the contrary, the TSO does not need probable cause to subject a passenger to secondary screening, whether or not they cleared the metal detector. I know you're trying to put the best face on this, but you are falling way short.

[sabrina 1]

18. I don't see much substance in your comment.

I know what behavioral profiling means, do you? It is ONE of several hoops required in the bill (see A,B,C) that the TSA will have to overcome BEFORE they can do what they now do.

The TSA better have 'reasonable' cause, and that doesn't include 'you looked like a terrorist little 3 year old) before they engage in the practices they are now engaged in should this bill pass. Because if they think they have lawsuits NOW, wait for what they will face if they violate any of the conditions laid out in this bill.

I will defer to the ACLU on this, who have been fighting against these gross violations of our rights for over six years now.

You still have said nothing to demonstrate whatever point you are trying to make.

One more thing, in just six months since the TSA 'rolled out' their enhanced patdowns, clearly for the purpose of selling the machines for Chertoff, Congress and so far 11 states are up in arms over their tactics. Not to mention the general public. And it's only get to get worse for them as more lawsuits are filed and more people travel. I am satisfied with the reaction to these horrific Constitutional violations so far.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Sabrina...

Tell me how you would measure whether a TSO had objectively and properly behaviorally profiled a passenger.

Hint: it's a blank check, Sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

20. You haven't read the whole bill, have you?

The current of TSA agents are not qualified to use that technique, first of all. And, it is only one of several hurdles for them, as I already pointed out. Great to see rocks being thrown in the way of what they are doing now, and quite a few of them also.

[GoneOffShore]

21. Out of an abundance of caution that would be bad.

[sabrina 1]

26. What would be bad?

[SDuderstadt]

22. Yes, I have...

have you?

How do you know whether any current agents are "qualified"? Are you claiming behavioral profiling is not currently being used?

[somone]

8. Recommended

[fascisthunter]

9. Ja.... May Vee zee your Paperz!

time to tamper down the authoritarianism.

[sabrina 1]

27. Way past time.

This is a start, but it will be fought by the lobbyists as Chaffetz says.

[midnight]

11. I don't know why, but this does not seem secure enough..

‘(3) ENHANCED PAT-DOWN SEARCHES- An enhanced pat-down search may not be used as a method of screening a passenger under this section unless another method of screening, such as metal detection, explosive trace detection, behavioral profiling, or use of advanced imaging technology in accordance with paragraph (2), demonstrates reasonable cause for utilizing advanced imaging technology to detect a possible threat to aviation security.

[sabrina 1]

12. Well, I would like to see them banned altogether

but, this is an improvement. They would have to allow people to use the regular metal detectors and if they get through them with no problem, then they cannot demand they use the Scanners or Patdowns, unless they remove them. So, maybe the bill should insist that they be available.

But now they can just call someone from the line and insist they go through the Naked Scanners and if they refuse, they must accept the patdown. It puts other options in the way. I doubt anything more extreme, like banning them altogether would have a chance of passing. Which is why it is a shame they ever got into use at all.

Hopefully the states will ban them, as several are considering doing. But once they got away with installing them, it was never going to be easy to get rid of them. Unless the public is willing to conduct boycotts which will cost them money.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Jesus, Sabrina...

Did you miss the part about "behavioral profiling"? Someone could clear the metal detector and STILL be stubjected to secondary screening, despite your claim to the contrary.

[sabrina 1]

24. And right now someone doesn't need to clear the metal

detector to be subjected to the scanners/patdowns. They go straight to the last step.

If you read the bill you must have seen that there are other requirements, other than profiling, so no matter what you say, this bill makes going straight to the scanners/patdowns for most Americans, children, the disabled, the elderly etc much more difficult for the TSA.

And hopefully this bill is just the first step towards eliminating all of it and returning to sanity.

[SoDesuKa]

23. The Nuttiness Is Wearing Off

I've been a skeptic about TSA since the Day One, and I watched with horror as its wretched excesses got more and more intolerable. There has to be something other than normal, rational thinking going on when people all but disrobe and submit to the kind of poking and pawing they do. With this legislation, a little bit of sanity is finally returning.

Professor John Muller's book "Overblown" is a good resource for a counter-opinion about the necessity of a "war on terror" in the first place. The description of the book on the publisher's web page questions whether the response to September 11th isn't wildly disproportionate to the actual chances of a second terror attack:

. . . It is time to consider the hypothesis that dare not speak its name: we have wildly overreacted. Terrorism has been used by murderous groups for many decades, yet even including 9/11, the odds of an American being killed by international terrorism are microscopic. In general, international terrorism doesn't do much damage when considered in almost any reasonable context. . . .

Lashing out at the terrorist threat is frequently an exercise in self-flagellation because it is usually more expensive than the terrorist attack itself and because it gives the terrorists exactly what they are looking for. Much, probably most, of the money and effort expended on counterterrorism since 2001 (and before, for that matter) has been wasted.

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Overblown/John-Mueller/9781416541721

The term self-flagellation is curious here because of its religious overtones. I'm convinced that at some level Americans believe Muslims took down the World Trade Center through magical power. If the God of the Muslims has given his agents mysterious powers, it must mean that at some level we have displeased our own God. Theology professor David Ray Griffin makes similar arguments in his efforts to explain why Americans have accepted and believed the 9/11 Commission Report which, Griffin says, is full of lies, omissions and distortions.

What is the American form of this nationalist faith? It is that “the United States is a fundamentally virtuous nation.” This faith does not mean that there can be no criticism of a America’s actions. “But the criticism is that the nation’s actions are not in its true interests or do not accord with its true character.” These criticisms hence express the nationalist faith, which is that our country is essentially good, never deliberately doing evil.

http://davidraygriffin.com/lectures/911-and-nationalist-faith/

Boarding a plane has become for Americans a purifying ritual by which our sins are cleansed. Questioning the ban on shampoo and other liquids aboard airplanes is a kind of apostasy which might also be called a behavioral clue to malevolence. There's a Charley Brown sincerity-all-around aspect to the whole response to the Muslim's use of divine magic against us. The Great Pumpkin will never appear so long as there are doubters!



I believe in the goodness of America

[sabrina 1]

25. "With this legislation, a little bit of sanity is finally returning."

Yes, it's been a long nightmare, hasn't it, watching the destruction of rights, the wars, the torture, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the corruption, the billions of dollars unaccounted for.

You said:

There has to be something other than normal, rational thinking going on when people all but disrobe and submit to the kind of poking and pawing they do.

It's puzzling to me, it's like watching something out of a medieval movie and if you were watching a movie, you would want to scream at them 'Don't do it!'. I could see it if it was the 'enemy' enforcing this abuse, but it's supposedly our friends.

From Prof John Muller's Overblown:

we have wildly overreacted. Terrorism has been used by murderous groups for many decades, yet even including 9/11, the odds of an American being killed by international terrorism are microscopic. In general, international terrorism doesn't do much damage when considered in almost any reasonable context

I admit that I never supported any of it. I lived in NY when 9/11 happened, and before it happened NYers basically expected a terror attack every day. The 1993 bombing made it a matter of when, not if. But no one stopped going about their business. What good would it have done anyhow? We would just have lived in fear for seven years and it would not have stopped anything.

What COULD have stopped it was competence on the part of the Bush administration. Clinton stopped several attacks, I'm sure they are stopped on a regular basis in other parts of the world. The negligence of the Bush Admin. according to Richare Clarke contributed greatly to the success of 911.

But I knew for sure that harassing babies and old ladies was not the way to prevent an attack. So, I was always certain that the GWOT was about money. Not safety.

Still, fear is a powerful emotion and in order to get our cooperation, fear had to be instilled and it was and it worked, for a while. Long enough for a lot of people to become extremely wealthy.

I haven't read that book, sounds interesting.

Regarding the religious aspect of it all, there definitely is that. On all sides.

'Our country is essentially good'. Yes, I think it is. But our government is not. Which is true of many nations including dictatorships.

There's a Charley Brown sincerity-all-around aspect to the whole response to the Muslim's use of divine magic against us. The Great Pumpkin will never appear so long as there are doubters!

I guess I am responsible for the Great Pumpkin not appearing then :-)

So, do you think the country is finally emerging from its stupor, religious or otherwise? The 'terror' tactic doesn't seem to be working so well anymore.

Otoh, will it sink back quickly if there is another attack? If we had decent leadership, more spiritual perhaps, they would make it clear that it is possible. And we should regard it the way we regard other disasters. Inevitable but with no need to surrender all of out rights because of it, any more than we do after a tragic hurricane eg. We go about our business.

The fear factor imho, was not natural, it was imposed by the media and by our politicians. And it was deliberate.

Interesting post, a lot to think about and thank you for the links. I will put that book on my list.

[customerserviceguy]

28. This is good news

I was waiting patiently for the backlash against security theatre.

[sabrina 1]

29. Yes, even Republicans are scared by what they after all,

unleashed during the Bush years.

[customerserviceguy]

30. In my lurking days over at freeperville

I do recall them saying, "But would we trust Clinton and Reno with this Patriot Act?"

I guess it's come back to bite them in the hindquarters.

[sabrina 1]

31. So many times I asked them to think what would happen

when Democrats took over and they had given them all that power! lol!

Most of the ones I talked to were certain, like Phil Gramm, that Democrats were 'finished' for decades to come if not forever.